Home Politics & Debate
Come and join our Support Circle, every Tuesday, 8 - 9:30pm! Limited spaces available! Sign up here
Read the community guidelines before posting ✨

What's your religion?

1234568

Comments

  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    I'm not sure what you're trying to argue. Humans do do all those behaviours, but they are very definitely not socially or morally acceptable to the community. The human herd will ostracise anyone revealed to be a murderer or a child sex abuser or whatever. You don't generally see that in the animal kingdom.

    What I'm trying to argue? I'm explaining the known scientific reasons for the ethical behaviour you like to attribute to the existence of a god. There are very good reasons why murder isn't socially acceptable, just like there are very good reasons why we find sex enjoyable and can't stand the smell of shit. Everything else you mention is just evidence of more complex social circles as a result of greater cognitive capacity and therefore the ability to organise things on a greater scale and communicate in more sophisticated ways. You can bang on with your unsubstantiated claims about your god as much as you want, but when you make incorrect factual claims about the supposed uniqueness of humans' ethical behaviour, I'm going to correct you.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    I'm not sure what you're trying to argue. Humans do do all those behaviours, but they are very definitely not socially or morally acceptable to the community. The human herd will ostracise anyone revealed to be a murderer or a child sex abuser or whatever. You don't generally see that in the animal kingdom.

    Forms of child sexual abuse were practiced and accepted for centuries as the 'norm'. It's only a relatively recent historical development that there should be an age of consent, for example. So where was God's 'morals' evident in all those 'lost' centuries?
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    MoK wrote: »
    The local priest works on the seventh day. Oops
    Matthew 12.5:
    Or have you not read in the law that on the sabbath the priests in the temple break the sabbath and yet are guiltless?

    But this isn't actually about fighting over Scripture, my point is more that Scripture is complex and contradictory. Maybe this whole conversation about the rights and wrongs of Christianity would be better in its own thread?
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    piccolo wrote: »
    But this isn't actually about fighting over Scripture, my point is more that Scripture is complex and contradictory.

    Sorry, that's my point too.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    I was an atheist before I ever heard of Dawkins.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    MoK wrote:
    It's a zealot thing. Why answer a question when you can preach?

    I wonder if he knows how magnets work? :chin:

    hahahaha, I went to McDonald's the other day, and got one of their Star Trek toys. It was Yoda, with a disk which rose and fell by magnets when you moved his arm. All I could think was "Magnets, how do they work? Where's a mormon when you need one?" :D

    Anyway,
    But where does "plain common decency" come from? Our equivalents in the animal kingdom don't share the same morals- they frequently mate with their young, or eat their young, or kill each other. What makes us different?

    Does this need answering? Also Buddhism isn't the same thing, 100%. Whilst it also does have the same religious ties with being born again, finding that great place, etc. it's not slaving yourself to a supreme being, it's more of changing your life, becoming better, in time to be prepared to find nirvana - which is more than just repenting for sins.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    JavaKrypt wrote: »
    and got one of their Star Trek toys. It was Yoda,


    A million Star Wars souls cried out in torment :grump:
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    katralla wrote: »
    I was an atheist before I ever heard of Dawkins.

    You're an O.G.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    MoK wrote: »
    A million Star Wars souls cried out in torment :grump:
    Woops, Wars, ha. Legit typo :p
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    piccolo wrote: »
    But this isn't actually about fighting over Scripture, my point is more that Scripture is complex and contradictory. Maybe this whole conversation about the rights and wrongs of Christianity would be better in its own thread?

    It depends.

    If it descends to the level of the Church of the Flying Spaghetti Monster, like it always does, then it is best not to have it in any thread.

    I'm a Catholic and I'm not likely to suddenly change my mind because someone quotes Dawkins at me. Similarly I'm probably not going to convince an atheist to suddenly start coming to Catholic Mass with me. People are free to make their own choices about what and who they believe in. I think they'd be happier if they followed my belief system but, hey, most of us (of any persuasion) think the same.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru

    Firstly, why do you care? If you don't believe in God why do you care what Christian teaching says will happen to you? If He doesn't exist then it won't happen, surely?

    As for the rest of your post, I'm not sure what you're trying to argue.

    If someone has badly behaved all their life and repents on their deathbed, the Lord will still judge whether their penance is genuine or not. If they feel genuine sorrow and remorse at what they've done, and willingly return to God, then He will welcome them with open arms. He is willing to forgive our sins and our mistakes, big or small, if we genuinely appreciate what we have done and genuinely want to return to His family. If you don't want to return to His family then you won't be welcomed into His family.

    Jesus taught us, however, our actions are far more important than our piety. His parable of the Good Samaritan shows that more than anything, bearing in mind who left the dying man in the road and what the Jewish opinion of the Samaritan people was. If we hold God in our hearts and worship him we will be admitted into His Kingdom, and the most important part of that is how we act towards the lowliest people of all. But if you don't hold Him in your heart then you won't be admitted.

    People who do not believe in God will be permanently separated from Him and His Kingdom. Makes sense, surely?

    When did i say that i did not believe?

    The church, God , religion in general rejects me even though i am good hearted person.

    It seems i am not worthy of tolerance or forgiveness because i cant live my life as a lier and hypercrit.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    But at the end of it all, I couldn't help thinking it's fundamentally the same idea...

    20110206131.jpg
    Cambodia looks beautiful...

    What was the purpose of the money and the Buddhas? Offerings for the monks and nuns?

    Just asking, as I don't think Buddhism is in any way comparable to say... Islam or Christianity. Other than perhaps, the monastic element of Theravada Buddhism.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Namaste wrote: »
    What was the purpose of the money and the Buddhas? Offerings for the monks and nuns?

    Yeah, donations. The most ironic collection box I saw was in a room full of solid gold statues and over 9000 diamonds sitting on a solid silver floor. And they generally are for the monks, because all of these places charge entrance fees for the upkeep of the artefacts and buildings. I think that one might've been an exception though, because it was the proper glass job you get in museums that don't look like they've been emptied for decades.

    Yeah, if you get the chance to go to Cambodia, it's fantastic. Mainly the Angkor region (look up Beng Mealea, which is ten times better than any of the actual Angkor temples), but Phnom Penh has some interesting things.

    We were lucky enough to be in that temple last Sunday, which is the weekend of Chinese New Year. The idea of the meat/egg/lion thing is that offerings are made in order to ensure good luck for the coming year, with people born in the year of the rabbit having to offer double. I'm unreliably informed that the food goes to the poor, which is reassuring in a country as poor as that. I'm guessing that doesn't involve scraping the egg up, which for some reason has to be broken on the lion's head.

    Anyway, the comment about them all being the same was slightly tongue in cheek, but there's more to it than just the money thing. All I really see different is that in Buddhism, the concept of salvation is replaced with luck. You perform this ritual and you get good luck. And every ritual involves a collection box somewhere along the way. My personal favourite was this one:

    20110206152.jpg

    Set a bird free and you'll get good luck. Only $1. Of course the birds are trained to come back.
  • Indrid ColdIndrid Cold Warming up? Posts: 16,688
    Louisek wrote: »
    The church, God , religion in general rejects me even though i am good hearted person.
    The church is a completely different thing than religion and God (any of them). Don't confuse the two...

    Generally (the following is my opinion) "the church" shouldn't exist in the way it does now and has for thousands of years (at least for christians; can't really speak for others). The "church" is to religion what a tourism company is to a landmark.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Louisek wrote: »
    When did i say that i did not believe?

    The church, God , religion in general rejects me even though i am good hearted person.

    It seems i am not worthy of tolerance or forgiveness because i cant live my life as a lier and hypercrit.

    I really don't understand what you're upset about.

    If you believe in God and Jesus Christ then part of your faith should involve worship. Scripture tells us that. What form that worship takes depends on what particular strain of Christianity you wish to follow; Methodist worship is very different to Roman Catholic worship, for example, but it is still worshipping the Lord. There is more than one Church in the Christian family.

    Jesus teaches us that worship alone does not grant you passage to the Kingdom. You have to put your money where your mouth is. People who are pious in Church and selfish nasty people out of Church will not be going to Heaven any time soon. People who are good people outside of Church, but not always pious in Church, will be going to Heaven.
    Generally (the following is my opinion) "the church" shouldn't exist in the way it does now and has for thousands of years (at least for christians; can't really speak for others). The "church" is to religion what a tourism company is to a landmark.

    Which "Church"? All of them?
  • Indrid ColdIndrid Cold Warming up? Posts: 16,688
    Which "Church"? All of them?
    Any church that acts as any kind of authority* instead of simply offering advice and performing ceremonies.

    *"Authority" as in "Report this incident to the authorities" as opposed to "Professor Const is an authority on ancient Egyptians".
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Jesus teaches us that worship alone does not grant you passage to the Kingdom. You have to put your money where your mouth is. People who are pious in Church and selfish nasty people out of Church will not be going to Heaven any time soon. People who are good people outside of Church, but not always pious in Church, will be going to Heaven.

    That sounds a little different to this . . . .
    JESUS wrote:

    Think not that I am come to destroy the law, or the prophets: I am not come to destroy, but to fulfil.
    For verily I say unto you, Till heaven and earth pass, one jot or one tittle shall in no wise pass from the law, till all be fulfilled.
    Whosoever therefore shall break one of these least commandments, and shall teach men so, he shall be called the least in the kingdom of heaven: but whosoever shall do and teach them, the same shall be called great in the kingdom of heaven.
    For I say unto you, That except your righteousness shall exceed the righteousness of the scribes and Pharisees, ye shall in no case enter into the kingdom of heaven.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Funny you should quote that, it was the Gospel reading yesterday, although a more modern translation of it.

    The gist of it is that the law is there to be obeyed and if you do not obey it then you will not enter the Kingdom. But the rest of the section, what you have missed out, goes on to explain what that means. And that means not simply obeying the letter of the law, but the spirit of it too (Jesus talks of causing your wife to be an adulteress after divorce [in the context of only men being allowed to divorce- women couldn't divorce their husband], or committing adultery yourself after divorce, or if you look on another woman with lust in your heart). In that context the Pharisees were criticised, as they often were by Jesus, for being picking and choosing their laws, being too obsessed by the letter of the law and not enough by behaving properly.

    You do have to be righteous to enter Heaven. But that is far more about your thoughts and your actions- whether you obey the spirit of His law- rather than whether you tick all the procedural boxes. His constant criticism of the Pharisees proves that.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Funny you should quote that, it was the Gospel reading yesterday, although a more modern translation of it.

    The modern translations cause problems with understanding. Legal statutes are very carefully worded. (A cursory glance at this year's legislation will show that). Altered ancient Hebrew words will give a totally different slant on what a certain statute is commanding but maybe that is another story for another day.
    The gist of it is that the law is there to be obeyed and if you do not obey it then you will not enter the Kingdom. But the rest of the section, what you have missed out, goes on to explain what that means. And that means not simply obeying the letter of the law, but the spirit of it too (Jesus talks of causing your wife to be an adulteress after divorce [in the context of only men being allowed to divorce- women couldn't divorce their husband], or committing adultery yourself after divorce, or if you look on another woman with lust in your heart). In that context the Pharisees were criticised, as they often were by Jesus, for being picking and choosing their laws, being too obsessed by the letter of the law and not enough by behaving properly.

    I selected what I thought was relevant to your quote. The reference to divorce in Matthew 31-32 is a reiteration of the divorce statutes given in Deutorony 24 concerning written bills of divorce. If the legal procedure of a written bill handed to the wife was adhered to then she would not be in breach of the adultery statutes should she wish to remarry.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    I'm not a theologian so it's interesting to see different interpretations of the same thing. Your interpretation certainly isn't one that was invested in it during Mass.

    With divorce, the interpretation taught was that divorce is never allowed, even with a bill of divorce, you make your wife an adulteress by giving her a bill. But with Catholic teaching about divorce, you'd expect that interpretation to be taught. And with the section about quarrels with your brother, the interpretation taught was that it was better to solve your quarrel with your brother before you obey the law on providing sacrifices to God.

    Of course this is the problem with any sort of translation- it is always someone's interpretation, and the translations are as carefully worded as the original is.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Not really got one. But the thought of being on my knees with my mouth open while a bloke in a dress walks towards me is strangely appealing.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    RubberSkin wrote: »
    Not really got one. But the thought of being on my knees with my mouth open while a bloke in a dress walks towards me is strangely appealing.

    You'd probably be a little old for his tastes! :D
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    You'd probably be a little old for his tastes! :D

    You'd probably be a little old for his testes! :D
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    I'm not a theologian so it's interesting to see different interpretations of the same thing. Your interpretation certainly isn't one that was invested in it during Mass.

    With divorce, the interpretation taught was that divorce is never allowed, even with a bill of divorce, you make your wife an adulteress by giving her a bill. But with Catholic teaching about divorce, you'd expect that interpretation to be taught. And with the section about quarrels with your brother, the interpretation taught was that it was better to solve your quarrel with your brother before you obey the law on providing sacrifices to God.

    Of course this is the problem with any sort of translation- it is always someone's interpretation, and the translations are as carefully worded as the original is.

    I think your studies (and the suppliers thereof) are viewing things in a theological way which, as you point out, is to be expected. My studies are predominantly of a legal nature.

    There are materials available (if you have the desire and inclination) whereby you can obtain correct ancient Hebrew translations.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    You'd probably be a little old for his tastes! :D

    I'll have you know, the priest from St................... fucked me rotten a few years ago when i met him out cruising in Eastbourne. Didn't realise till the morning that when i was leaving i was walking out of a church !
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    I think your studies (and the suppliers thereof) are viewing things in a theological way which, as you point out, is to be expected. My studies are predominantly of a legal nature.

    There are materials available (if you have the desire and inclination) whereby you can obtain correct ancient Hebrew translations.

    Yeah, *correct* translations.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    katralla wrote: »
    Yeah, *correct* translations.

    Accurate ?
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Who cares, an accurate translation of horse shit is still shit?
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    katralla wrote: »
    Who cares, an accurate translation of horse shit is still shit?

    (Horse)shit happens.

    Laws care not for your opinion (or mine, for that matter).
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    katralla wrote: »
    Who cares, an accurate translation of horse shit is still shit?

    No, it's accurate shit :)
Sign In or Register to comment.